The evolution of college and university campus security in the United States

Abstract

This chapter tracks the evolution of campus security mandates by the US federal government; describes the safety and security measures implemented by institutions of higher education to address campus criminal victimization; and takes stock of the campus security mandates and safety and security measures directed at reducing criminal victimization among college students.

Full text

399
19
The Evolution ofCollege andUniversity
Campus Security intheUnited States:
Congressional Legislation, Administrative
Directives, andPolicing
BonnieS.Fisher, MichelleE.Protas, LoganJ.Lanson,
andJohnJ.Sloan III
Abstract e history of institutions of higher education (IHE) in the United
States reveals that criminal victimization, ranging from sexual assault to physi-
cal assaults to harassment to thefts, have been part of the collegiate life since
the founding of the rst colleges in New England during the colonial era to
recent Carnegie Foundation estimates of over 4440IHEs. For decades IHEs
dealt with the security of their respective campus and students with little over-
sight or accountability to the federal government. is changed in 1990 when
Congress passed and George H.W.Bush signed into law the Student Right-to-
Know and Campus Security Act (renamed theClery Act) mandating Title IV
nancial aid eligible IHEs to publicly disclose an annual security report with
their annual crime statistics and security policies. e Clery Act set in motion
continued federal legislation over the last 25 years that has focused on improv-
ing campus security and students’ safety, including a White House Task to
Protect Students from Sexual Assault during the Obama Administration.
B. S. Fisher (*) M. E. Protas
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
e-mail: Bonnie.Fisher@uc.edu
L. J. Lanson
Wadsworth, OH, USA
J. J. Sloan III
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
© e Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
M. Gill (ed.), e Handbook of Security, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91735-7_19

400
Interest in preventing and responding to campus victimization has continued
through the Trump Administration, including proposed changes in IHEs’
response to a report of sexual harassment and sexual violence.
is chapter will:
• track the evolution of campus security mandates by the US federal
government,
• describe the safety and security measures implemented by IHEs to address
campus criminal victimization, and
• take stock of thecampus security mandates and safety and security mea-
sures directedat reducing criminal victimization among college students.
Over 19million students were enrolled in two- and four-year institutions of
higher education (IHEs) in 2019—a sizable cohort comprising over 7% of
the United States’ adult population and the majority of which are young
adults between the ages of 18 and 24 (US Department of Education 2019).
Along with students, faculty and sta and daily visitors comprise the campus
community. Similar to other communities, the campus community experi-
ences threats to its security, chief of which is criminal victimization of its
members and their property.
Beyond serving as a learning environment, students live, work, and engage
in leisure activities on and adjacent to IHEs. eir “party culture” lifestyle and
amount of property owned create ample opportunities for personal and prop-
erty victimization. To illustrate, in 2017 (the most recent year data are avail-
able), there were 28,873 criminal incidents against persons and property on
IHE campuses reported to police and security agencies, a rate of 19.6 inci-
dents per 10,000 full-time students (see Tables 21.1 and 21.2, Wang et al.
2020). Among all on-campus incidents, property crimes were the most com-
mon, 52.3% of the total, with burglary comprising 38%, motor vehicle theft
12%, and arson 2.1% of the total reported incidents. Interpersonal violence
comprised 47.7% of the total, including forcible sex oenses (rape and fon-
dling) constituting 36.0%, robbery 3.6%, and aggravated assault 7.7% of the
total reported incidents (see Table 21.1, Wang etal. 2020).
Daily interactions among members of the campus community, especially
between students, create ample opportunities for victimization involving sex-
ual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalk-
ing. e 2019 American Association of Universities’ Campus Climate Survey
on Sexual Assault and Misconduct reported that 13% of students experienced
at least one nonconsensual sexual contact (penetration or sexual touching) by
B. S. Fisher et al.

401
physical force or inability to consent since they enrolled at school, with rates
for women, gender identity minorities, and undergraduates signicantly
higher than rates for men and graduate/professional students. Prevalence rates
for sexual harassment (18.9%), stalking (5.8%), and intimate partner vio-
lence among those in a partnered relationship (10.1%) since enrolled as a
student also are considered alarming threats to students’ wellbeing and secu-
rity (Cantor etal. 2020).
It is thus not surprising that IHE security policy has maintained a solid
footing with the federal government and IHE campus security and police
departments. In this chapter, we document the evolution of security issues at
IHEs in the United States along with government and institutional responses
to them as shaped by two separate, yet complementary, dimensions:
Congressional legislation coupled with US Department of Education admin-
istrative regulations and guidance and the formalization of campus security
resulting in creation of campus security and police departments. As discussed
below and presented in Tables 19.1 and 19.2, these dimensions have both
changed and expanded over time.
The Evolution ofFederal Legislative
andAdministrative Directives
Table 19.1 presents a timeline of Congressional legislation and amendments
to the legislation, as well as administrative guidance and rulemaking occur-
ring over the period 1990 to the present. As shown in Table19.1, security
issues at IHEs led to federal intervention, resulting in specic outcomes (e.g.,
new requirements for reporting crime statistics) that expanded the scope of
IHEs’ responsibility for providing security to the campus community.
Importantly, as the number of legislative mandates increased, so did the threat
of IHEs losing their eligibility to receive federal nancial aid funding for stu-
dents or being ned for noncompliance.
Congressional Legislation
Below, we describe relevant legislation and amendments to it that addressed
specic security issues at IHEs and created new, or expanded existing, policies
and practices.
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

402
Table 19.1 Congressional legislation, amendments, and administrative guidance and
rulemaking addressing campus security
Year/action Security issue
Name of legislation
or administrative
directive
Selected requirement
or outcome
1990/Amends
Higher Education
Act of 1965
• Epidemic of
violence claims
• Lax physical
security
• Lack of IHE
transparency
and
accountability of
campus crime
data and security
Student Right-to-
Know & Campus
Security Act
(1990) (Pub. L.
101-542)
• ASR public
disclosure of crime
statistics, arrests for
drug, weapon, and
alcohol violations
• ASR public
disclosure of
disciplinary hearing,
and security policies
and procedures
1992/Amends
Campus Security
Act
• Sexual assault
survivors and
accusers denied
rights in
disciplinary
process
• Lack of IHE
compliance
Campus Sexual
Assault Victims
Bill of Rights
(1992) (Pub. L
102-325, §486 [c])
• Report policies,
procedures, and
services of all sexual
assault survivors
• Same basic rights for
both parties
• Sanctions for
noncompliance
1994/Amends
Higher Education
Amendments of
1992
• Unknown
prevalence of
campus sexual
assault
• Campuses
unsafe for
women
The Violence
Against Women
Act of 1994 (1994)
(Pub. L 103-322,
Title IV)
• Funds a national
baseline study on
campus sexual
assault
• Funds grants for
campus sexual
offenses education
and prevention
programs
1997/Guidance
from OCR
• Significant
number of
students
experiencing
sexual
harassment
Sexual Harassment
Guidance:
Harassment of
Students by
School Employees,
Other Students,
or Third Parties
• Describes IHE
liability for
harassment by
employees, peers, or
a third party
(continued)
B. S. Fisher et al.

403
Table 19.1 (continued)
Year/action Security issue
Name of legislation
or administrative
directive
Selected requirement
or outcome
1998/Higher
Education
Amendments of
1998 (HEA98)
renames &
amends the
Campus Security
Act
• Nonuniformity
in disclosure
requirements
The Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of
Campus Security
Policy & Campus
Crime Statistics
Act (1998) (Pub. L.
105-244, Sec 486)
• Report arson and
negligent
manslaughter
statistics
• Expands geographic
locations for crime
reporting on campus
property
• Campus security/
police departments
maintain daily public
crime log
• Distribute ASR to
current students and
employees
2000/ VAWA
reauthorization
• Dating violence,
especially
date-rape drugs
Violence Against
Women Act of
2000 (2000) (Public
Law No: 106-386,
Division B)
• Requires dating
violence to be
included education
& prevention
programs
2000/ VAWA
reauthorization
amends Jacob
Wetterling
Crimes Against
Children &
Sexually Violent
Offender
Registration Act
• Threat of sexual
offenders on
campus
The Campus Sex
Crimes Prevention
Act (2000) (1601,
Pub. L 106-386)
• Requires registered
sexual offenders to
disclose their status
on campus
• Requires IHEs to
disclose where
information on
registered sex
offenders can be
obtained
2001/Guidance
from OCR, revises
original 1997
document
• Lack of
compliance
standards for
investigating
and enforcing
Title IX
Revised Sexual
Harassment
Guidance:
Harassment of
Students by
School Employees,
Other Students,
or Third Parties
*Rescinded by
Department of
Education
• Explains compliance
responsibilities
• Provides the
circumstances that
sexual harassment
may constitute
discrimination
(continued)
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

404
Table 19.1 (continued)
Year/action Security issue
Name of legislation
or administrative
directive
Selected requirement
or outcome
2005/VAWA
reauthorization
• Prevalence of
violent crimes
against women
on college
campuses
Violence Against
Women
Reauthorization
Act of 2005 (2005)
(Pub. L 109-162)
• Funds grants to
combat violence
against women on
campus
• Standards of
training for campus
security personnel
and disciplinary
judicial boards
2008/Amends Clery
Act
• Lack of
transparency in
emergency
response
procedures and
fire safety
reporting
• Lack of
communication
on disciplinary
hearing results
Higher Education
Opportunity Act
(2008) (Pub. L
110-315)
• Develop and
distribute immediate
campus emergency
response and
evacuation
procedures
• Report bias-related
hate crime to crime
log and crime
statistics
• Publicize missing
student reports and
policies
• Implement fire
safety reporting
• Disclose relationship
of campus security
with state and local
law enforcement
agencies
• Disclose disciplinary
proceedings results
to the victim of
violence/non-
forcible sex offense
(continued)
B. S. Fisher et al.

405
Table 19.1 (continued)
Year/action Security issue
Name of legislation
or administrative
directive
Selected requirement
or outcome
2011/Guidance
from OCR
• Lack of
immediate and
effective steps to
respond to
sexual violence
by schools
Dear Colleague
Letter guidance
*Rescinded by
Secretary of
Education Betsy
DeVos in 2017
• Describes
obligations to
respond to sexual
harassment and
violence
• Proscribes
procedural
requirements for
complaint and
proceedings
• Recommendations
on prevention and
provisions for victim
resources
2013/VAWA
reauthorization
• Lack of services
for minority
populations
Violence Against
Women
Reauthorization
Act of 2013 (2013)
(Pub. L 113-4)
• Requires targeted
programs for
underserved
populations on
campuses
• Minimum training
requirement for
effective responses
to sexual violence
• Develop prevention
and intervention
materials on sexual
violence
2013/Amends Title
IV of the HEA65
• Lack of
transparency
regarding
incidents of
sexual violence
on campuses
Campus Sexual
Violence
Elimination Act
(SaVE Act) (2013)
*Part of the
Violence AgaInst
Women
Reauthorization
Act of 2013
• ASR include national
origin and gender
identity as hate
crime categories
• Report domestic
violence, dating
violence, and
stalking statistics
• Protect victim
confidentiality when
reporting
community threats
• Requires primary
prevention and
education programs
on sexual violence
(continued)
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

406
Table 19.1 (continued)
Year/action Security issue
Name of legislation
or administrative
directive
Selected requirement
or outcome
2014/Guidance
from OCR
• Request by
schools for
technical
assistance on
Title IX
obligations
• Sexual violence
included as a
form of sexual
harassment
Questions &
Answers on Title
IX & Sexual
Violence
*Rescinded by
Secretary of
Education Betsy
DeVos in 2017
• Explains schools’
obligations when
responding to sexual
violence
• Reviews Title IX
procedural
requirements
• IHEs must make a
good faith effort to
comply with
statutory provisions
until final
regulations go into
effect
2020/Final Rule • Definition and
setting/location
of sexual
harassment as
per Title IX
• Lack of due
process in Title
IX proceedings
for both parties
Nondiscrimination
on the Basis of
Sex in Education
Programs or
Activities
Receiving Federal
Financial
Assistance (2020)
(34 CFR Part 106)
• Narrowed definition
and location
• Mandatory response
obligations for
grievance process,
investigation,
disciplinary hearing,
appeal, and informal
resolution
Amendments totheHigher Education Act of1965
After the rape and murder of Jeanne Clery at Lehigh University in 1986, her
parents Connie and Howard Clery, convinced that security lapses at the
school were the cause of their daughter’s death, were determined to raise
awareness about the problem of security lapses at IHEs and foster improve-
ments resulting in a safer environment for all students (Sloan and Fisher
2013). e Clery’s grassroots activism ultimately led to Congressional passage
of e Student Right-to-Know & Campus Security Act of 1990 (Campus Security
Act) deemed “consumer protection legislation” for current and prospective
IHE students and their parents (Fisher etal. 2010).
As shown in Table19.1, the Campus Security Act is landmark legislation
specically addressing campus security issues. Amending the Higher Education
Act of 1965, the Campus Security Act responded to claims of a violence epi-
demic occurring at IHEs—despite a dearth of empirical evidence—along
with lax physical security and a lack of transparency in, and accountability for,
B. S. Fisher et al.

407
Table 19.2 Campus policing safety and security issues, milestones, and their impact on
campus police/security
Year/time
period
Safety & security
issue
Campus policing
milestone
Impact on campus
police/security
1894 • Town versus Gown
rift
• Rule-breaking by
students
• Destruction of
campus property
• Yale University hires
two New Haven
police officers
• Formalization of
campus security
begins
• Systematic patrol of
campus
1900–1920 • Loss of physical
plant due to fire,
flood, or vandalism
• Rule-breaking by
students
• “Custodian-
watchman” era
• Expanded popularity
among IHEs of
systematic patrol of
campus
1920s–1950s • Traffic congestion
on campus
• Rule-breaking by
students
• Loss of physical
plant to fire, flood,
or vandalism
• “Watchman-
guards” era
• Continued
formalization of
campus security via
creation of “campus
security departments”
• Transfer of security
responsibilities from
physical plant
department to
“campus security
department”
• Creation of
professional
association for
campus security
“directors”
1960s–1970s • Loss of physical
plant due to fire,
flood, or vandalism
• Maintain order
• Rising crime rate
• State authorized
and statutorily
enabled campus
police departments
created at IHEs
• Bifurcation of campus
security into
nonsworn “security
guards” and sworn
“police officers”
• Adoption of
municipal police
organizational model
(continued)
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

408
Table 19.2 (continued)
Year/time
period
Safety & security
issue
Campus policing
milestone
Impact on campus
police/security
1980s • Criminal
victimization
• Order maintenance
• Widespread use of
alcohol/recreational
drugs
• Professionalization
of campus policing
• Formal efforts to
recruit/retain new
officers
• Police academy
training and field
training for new
officers
• Campus policing as a
“vocation”
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
1990 • Epidemic of
violence claims
• Lax physical
security
• Lack of IHE
transparency &
accountability of
campus crime data
& security
• Student Right-to-
Know & Campus
Security Act of
1990(1990)(Pub. L.
101-542)
• ASR public disclosure
of crime statistics,
arrests for drug,
weapon, and alcohol
violations
• ASR public disclosure
of disciplinary
hearing, and security
policies and
procedures
• Enhanced
transparency of
campus crime data
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
Early 1990s • College women
sexually victimized
• Drug/alcohol-
related
victimization
• Community-
Oriented Policing
(COP) introduced on
campus
• Reorientation of
campus policing to
follow COP precepts
• COP used to help
legitimize campus
police
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
(continued)
B. S. Fisher et al.

409
Table 19.2 (continued)
Year/time
period
Safety & security
issue
Campus policing
milestone
Impact on campus
police/security
1998 • College women
sexually victimized
• On-campus violent
crime
• Drug/alcohol-
related offenses
• Non-uniformity in
disclosure
requirements
• Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of
Campus Security
Policy & Campus
Crime Statistics Act
(1998)(Pub. L.
105-244)
• Report arson &
negligent
manslaughter
statistics
• Expands geographic
locations for crime
reporting on campus
property
• Maintain & make
publicly available a
daily crime log
• Continued emphasis
on professionalization
via academy training
• Continued expansion
of COP on campus
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
2000s • Post-9/11 terrorist
threats
• Drug/alcohol-
facilitated
victimization
• College women
sexually victimized
• Widespread
adoption of COP
• Widespread adoption
of COP on campus
• Select campus police
departments create
Special Weapons &
Tactics (SWAT) teams
• Beginning of
militarization of the
campus police
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
(continued)
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

410
Table 19.2 (continued)
Year/time
period
Safety & security
issue
Campus policing
milestone
Impact on campus
police/security
2008 • Active shooter(s)
on campus
• Firearms on campus
• Terrorist threats
• Lack of
transparency in
emergency
response
procedures
• Cybervictimization
of institution/
students
• Physical plant loss
due to human/
natural disaster
• Higher Education
Opportunity
Act(2008) (Pub. L.
110–315)
• Develop & distribute
immediate campus
emergency response &
evacuation procedures
• Report bias-related
hate crime to crime
log & crime statistics
• Implement fire safety
reporting
• Disclose relationship
of campus security
with state & local
enforcement agencies
• Active shooter
training for campus
police
• Jurisdiction of campus
police slowly expands
• Joint-training
exercises, exchanges
of in-service training
between campus &
local police
• Continued
militarization of
campus police
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
(continued)
B. S. Fisher et al.

411
Table 19.2 (continued)
Year/time
period
Safety & security
issue
Campus policing
milestone
Impact on campus
police/security
2013 • College women
victims of dating
and domestic
violence and
stalking
• Active shooter(s)
on campus
• Firearms on campus
• Violent
victimization on
campus
• Cybervictimization
of institution/
students
• Loss of physical
plant due to
human/natural
disaster
• Violence Against
Women
Reauthorization Act
of 2013 (2013)(Pub.
L. 113-4)
• New reporting
requirements for
incidents involving
stalking & dating &
domestic violence on
hate crimes to include
national origin &
gender of victims
• Expansion of campus
police jurisdiction
beyond
neighborhoods
adjacent to campus
• Continued
militarization of
campus police via
procurement of
surplus military-grade
weapons & equipment
through
U.S.Department of
Defense 1033 & 1122
initiatives
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
2015–
present
• Terrorist threats
• Active shooter
incidents
• Mass casualty
events
• Cybervictimization
of institution/
students/employees
• Threats to public
order
• Militarization of
campus police
• SWAT teams common
in campus police
departments
• Continued
procurement of
surplus military-grade
weapons & equipment
through
U.S.Department of
Defense 1033 & 1122
initiatives
• Facial recognition
software becoming
common
• Continued bifurcation
of campus security
IHEs’ compiling and publicly sharing their crime data and security informa-
tion. e Campus Security Act now requires all IHEs eligible for federal nan-
cial aid funding to make publicly available an annual security report (ASR)
containing crime statistics for selected oenses (including murder, rape,
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

412
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft) reported to
police or other legislatively authorized IHE ocials, information on on-cam-
pus arrests and disciplinary referrals for specic violations including liquor
laws, drugs, and illegal weapons possession, and descriptions of security poli-
cies and procedures.
With new requirements for public disclosure, supporters of the Campus
Security Act believed that IHEs would be more transparent by disclosing the
number of crime incidents on campus and their security policies and more
accountable through federal oversight of institutional compliance. However,
as shown in Table 19.1, transparency and accountability issues were soon
raised by sexual assault survivors who claimed IHEs were denying them vari-
ous rights during disciplinary hearings, including disclosure of their out-
comes. In response, Congress amended the Campus Security Act in 1992 by
passing the Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights. e new law now
requires IHEs to report all policies, procedures, and services to sexual assault
survivors. Additionally, both the accused and the accuser are given the same
basic rights during disciplinary hearings, including the right to have others
present and be informed of the outcome. Noncompliance could result in
institutional sanctions imposed by the US Department of Education.
e Campus Security Act was further amended in 1998 and renamed the
Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy & Campus Crime Statistics Act
(Clery Act). e Clery Act creates new requirements designed to address appar-
ent nonuniformity in IHE ASRs. Additionally, IHEs are required to compile
and report statistics on arson and negligent manslaughter counts in their
crime statistics, along with statistics for not only crimes occurring on campus
property, but also incidents occurring on non-campus properties used in sup-
port of educational purposes or on public property within a reasonably con-
tiguous geographic area. To further reinforce transparency and accountability
in reporting crime statistics, campus police and security departments must
maintain a publicly available daily crime log that includes the general loca-
tion, date, time, and nature of each incident reported to police or security
personnel. Reinforcing the initial consumer protection aims of the Campus
Security Act, the amendments’ requirement that ASRs include more details
about incidents that annually occurred on—or near—campus enhances IHE
transparency. By making this new information easily accessible, current and
prospective students and their families could make more informed decisions
about enrolling based on more complete safety and security information.
e Clery Act was again amended in 2008 by the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA) to remedy oversights such as not requiring IHE
B. S. Fisher et al.

413
disclosure of emergency response procedures and re safety, inconsistencies in
communications relating to disciplinary hearing results, and loopholes in
security-related requirements. Mindful of the need to further expand IHE
transparency and accountability, the HEOA requires IHEs to distribute cam-
pus emergency response contingencies (including evacuation procedures),
implement re safety reporting, include bias and hate crime-related incidents
in daily crime logs and statistics, and publicize missing student reports and
policies relating to them. e required “re safety report” must disclose the
number of res, their presumed causes, and any injuries or fatalities resulting
from them, along with providing a description of building sprinkler systems,
number of re drills held annually, and future plans for re safety improve-
ment. Additionally, HEOA requires results of disciplinary hearings of non-
forcible sex oenses or violence be disclosed to the complainant on request.
IHEs must also disclose the relationship between campus police or security
and local law enforcement (e.g., the parties have signed a mutual aid
agreement).
e Violence Against Women Act
As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, e
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is the rst comprehensive federal
legislation whose overarching goal is to address and reduce violence against all
women. Since the prevalence of campus sexual assault was largely unknown at
the time and feminists, researchers, and victim advocates pressed Congress
with their concerns over unsafe campuses for women, VAWA earmarks funds
to complete a national baseline study of campus sexual assault and for grants
to IHEs for sexual assault education and prevention programs (Sloan and
Fisher 2011).
As shown in Table19.1, since initial passage, VAWA has been reauthorized
three times. e Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2000 broadens
the scope of “violence against college women” to include dating violence and
allocates funding for grants to address dating violence. e Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2005 addresses the prevalence of violent crimes
against college women while also creating training standards for responses to
campus violence programs and standards for disciplinary boards. e Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 addresses the lack of services for
underserved populations. is reauthorization requires IHEs to implement
targeted programs for underserved populations and develop and disseminate
prevention and intervention materials on campus sexual violence. VAWA
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

414
grantees now have minimum requirements to meet regarding mandatory pre-
vention and education programs, coordinated community responses—includ-
ing external organizations and relevant institutional divisions—and training
campus law enforcement on responding to sexual violence incidents.
e Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) is part of the 2013
VAWA Reauthorization Act and is designed to strengthen the Clery Act.
Included among its aims is addressing the continuing lack of transparency
surrounding campus sexual violence statistics. To achieve this goal, IHEs must
now include national origin and gender identity of victims of hate crimes in
the ASR, collect and report domestic violence, dating violence and stalking
statistics in ASR crime statistics, and protect victim condentiality when
reporting threats to the campus community. Completing sexual violence pre-
vention and education programs are also required for incoming students and
new employees. ese programs must now include a statement that the IHE
prohibits sexual violence; denitions of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, stalking, and consent to sexual activity; options for bystander
intervention; and information on the warning signs of abusive behavior.
e enactment and reauthorizations of VAWA continue to enlarge the
scope of IHE transparency and accountability by expanding how grant fund-
ing can be used by IHEs. By creating standards for training requirements,
IHEs are held accountable for the (in)actions and responses (or lack thereof)
by campus personnel.
Administrative Guidance andRulemaking
In addition to federal legislation, theUS Department of Education Oce
forCivil Rights’ (OCR)(2011, 2014)administrative rules and guidance for
their meaning and implementation have shaped federal involvement in cam-
pus security. As shown in Table19.1 and discussed below, much of this activ-
ity has involved Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 rules and
guidance on their meaning and implementation.
Guidance onTitle IX
Originally enacted in 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act (1972)is
a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s
sex in any education program or activity receiving federal nancial aid. As
shown in Table19.1, in the name of increasing both IHE transparency and
B. S. Fisher et al.

415
accountability, the US Department of Education provided additional guid-
ance and directives specically aimed at security issues created by/associated
with sexual harassment and violence.
In 1997, the OCR issued a document, Sexual Harassment Guidance (1997
Guidance), for Title IX that describes IHE liability for [sexual] harassment by
an employee, peer, or third party(US Department of Education Oce for
Civil Rights 1997). e 1997 Guidance was updated in 2001 by the docu-
ment Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by
School Employees, Other Students, or ird Parties, which explains IHE
compliance responsibility and denes circumstances under which sexual
harassment constitutes sex-based discrimination. Instead of providing a dis-
tinct denition of sexual harassment for administrative enforcement, the
2001 Revised Guidance urged IHEs to consider the totality of the surround-
ing circumstances, expectations, and relationships of the parties involved for
determining if alleged harassment is actionable under Title IX (US Department
of Education Oce for Civil Rights 2001).
Omission of standards for IHE compliance when investigating and enforc-
ing Title IX complaints resulted in additional OCR guidance. e 2011 Dear
Colleague Letter outlined IHE Title IX standards for responding to sexual
harassment complaints, expanded IHE responses to include incidents of sex-
ual violence, and stipulated procedural requirements necessary for IHE han-
dling of sexual harassment complaints. e letter recognized that, for too
long, IHEs had swept these issues under the rug and emphasized the federal
government’s expectation that IHEs would fulll their responsibility to create
a safe environment for all students (Jordan 2019). Supporting this agency
initiative, President Obama created the White House Task Force in 2014 to
Protect Students from Sexual Assault with its primary goal being to end col-
lege sexual assault and initiate a grassroots strategy, “It’s On Us,” aimed at
IHEs to change the culture of support for sexual assault that exists on many
campuses (Jordan 2019).
A second guidance resource, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual
Violence, was issued by OCR in 2014in response to IHEs’ requests for techni-
cal assistance on their Title IX obligations. By reviewing Title IX procedural
requirements and stating that IHEs must make a “good faith eort” to com-
ply with Title IX statutory provisions until nal regulations took eect, IHEs
would have a better idea of their responsibilities when responding to com-
plaints of sexual harassment and violence.
In 2017, however, both guidance documents were rescinded by then
Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. Secretary DeVos instead implemented
her nal federal rule (Final Rule) relating to Title IX actions arising from
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

416
incidents of sexual harassment and violence contained in the document
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance in 2020. DeVos’ Final Rule narrows the
denition of sexual harassment and identies to which educational settings
and locations Title IX requirements apply. is Final Rule also includes man-
datory response obligations for IHEs for the complaint process, as well as for
investigations, disciplinary hearings, appeals, and informal resolutions. Not
all parties, however, were satised with DeVos’ Final Rule. For example, Know
Your IX, a survivor-led project whose goal is to end sexual and dating vio-
lence, wrote and published a 58-page critique noting that Secretary DeVos’
Final Rule would “increase the length of Title IX investigations, invite law
enforcement interference [with] school investigations, and allow schools to
use harmful mediation procedures to resolve cases of sexual assault and domes-
tic violence” (Know Your IX 2019, p.2).
Additional Amendments
As shown in Table19.1, to address the threat of sexual oenders enrolling as
students or being hired as IHE employees, Congress passed the Campus Sex
Crimes Prevention Act in 2000 to ensure the campus community would have
access to information about the presence of registered sex oenders on cam-
pus. is act amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children & Sexually
Violent Oender Registration Act and requires registered sexual oenders to
disclose their enrollment at IHEs to relevant local authorities. Schools must
then inform the campus community where information about registered sex
oender enrollments can be found. While solely providing the location of this
information is a step forward for improving the transparency by IHEs, at least
one study has shown students believed providing oender pictures, oense
type, and posting this information on the IHE’s website is preferred (Garland
etal. 2018).
The Evolution ofCampus Security andPolicing
Largely unknown in the United States is the fact that a majority of four-year
colleges and universities operate their own campus police departments. Most
of these departments employ sworn and armed ocers possessing full arrest
powers, and may patrol outside the boundaries of the campus (Reaves 2015).
B. S. Fisher et al.

417
Many departments often have specialized weapons and tactics (SWAT) units
and use military-grade weapons and equipment (Delehanty etal. 2017).
Table 19.2 presents a timeline for the evolution of campus security at US
IHEs and includes the year/time period of interest, the safety and security
issue(s) prominent at the time, the milestone(s) that occurred, and the impact
of the milestone(s) on campus police/security. As shown in Table19.2, if Yale
University’s hiring two New Haven (Connecticut) police ocers in 1894 to
“patrol” the campus and form a “police department” began the formalization
of campus security at US IHEs, formalization culminated during the 1960s
and 1970s with the creation of campus police departments. Further, as cam-
pus security became entrenched at American IHEs, it also bifurcated along
two lines: use of either sworn ocers, or non-sworn security guards. Of nal
interest is the fact that as campus police departments became common, ques-
tions about their transparency, accountability, and, most importantly, legiti-
macy have been raised and remain at issue (Wada etal. 2010).
One way to understand the evolution of campus policing is to view it as
revolving around eorts by campus police executives and their IHE overseers
to adequately answer questions about transparency, accountability, and legiti-
macy. As shown in Table19.2, sometimes the answers came in the form of
requirements via federal legislation, such as the Campus Security Act. Most
times, however, answers came from campus police executives hired to admin-
ister these agencies or IHE executives seeking to limit outside involvement in
eorts to protect the campus physical plant, enforce state law and institu-
tional rules, and maintain order on campus.
In Loco Parentis andCampus Security
Although IHEs rst appeared in the United States during the seventeenth
century, “campus security” as it is understood today did not exist until the
early decades of the twentieth century. e reason for this was simple: the
legal principle of in loco parentis (“in the place of the parents”) that guided
IHEs until the 1960s. Under in loco parentis, faculty and sta were responsible
for students’ physical and moral development and wellbeing (Newcomer
2017) as well as for detecting rules-breakers and helping protect the physical
plant (Gelber 1972). Deans of students and even college or university presi-
dents then served as judge and jury in disciplinary hearings in which students
had few rights and there were no appeals to sanctions imposed on them. is
was the general state of aairs when it came to campus security during the
seventeenth through early twentieth centuries.
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

418
At the turn of the twentieth century, rapid expansion of educational oppor-
tunities occurred as states created postsecondary Normal Schools to educate
and train teachers and the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which provided
federal grants to the states in the form of tracts of public land, spurred cre-
ation of public IHEs devoted to agriculture, and the “mechanical arts” (Peshek
2018). Importantly, municipal police departments, what became the organi-
zational model for campus police departments, were well-entrenched in major
cities in the United States at this point.
Watchmen andCampus Security
Yale’s hiring of two New Haven police ocers to patrol the campus, com-
bined with the spirit of in loco parentis, helped create a model for “campus
security”—watchmen—that other IHEs emulated and which evolved over
the next 50 years from using custodians and maintenance workers as watch-
men to hiring retired law enforcement ocials to serve in that role (Gelber
1972). While tasked mainly with addressing threats to the campus physical
plant involving re, ood, or vandalism, early custodian-watchmen could also
report student rule-breaking to faculty and thus served as additional eyes and
ears for IHE faculty and administrators when it came to student misconduct
and resulted in students according little legitimacy to them.
During the 1920s and 1930s as automobiles became popular on campus
and rules had to be drafted to address the myriad of problems they created,
IHEs hired watchmen-guards and tasked them with enforcing trac rules and
reporting their infraction to faculty or administrators. Watchmen-guards also
became increasingly associated with newly emerging “campus security depart-
ments” rather than campus maintenance (Bordner and Petersen 1983). e
1950s even saw the creation of a professional association for “campus security
directors” that ultimately morphed into the International Association of
Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), the largest professional
association of its type in the world (IACLEA 2020). However, with the
oncoming demise of in loco parentis and the advent of campus police depart-
ments, change was in the making.
Campus Police Departments
e 1960s saw dramatic changes in campus security as US IHEs experienced
large increases in enrollments as the “baby boomers” went to college. Physical
B. S. Fisher et al.

419
expansion of campuses continued and additional crime and trac congestion
occurred. e 1960s also witnessed the end of in loco parentis and a reorienta-
tion of the relationship between college student and IHE sparked in large part
by increasing levels of student activism in the form of on-campus protests,
sometimes violent, over civil rights, the Vietnam conict, women’s rights, and
the “free speech” movement (Johnson and Feinberg 1980). Maintaining order,
addressing rising levels of crime, and protecting the campus physical plant all
became paramount for IHE administrators who quickly learned that having
local, county, or state law enforcement or National Guard units on campus
was no solution. Outside agencies’ presence too often resulted in violent
clashes between students and police, resulting in the deaths of, and injuries to,
members of both groups.
IHE administrators instead turned to the states for help, convincing state
legislatures to pass enabling legislation or state attorneys general to issue
legally binding opinions that granted IHEs the authority to create their own
campus police departments (Gelber 1972). IHE administrators believed that
campus police would become part of the fabric of the community and thus
achieve more legitimacy than would outside law enforcement agencies brought
to campus to address crime, order maintenance, and physical plant protection.
As more campus police departments were created, bifurcation occurred in
how security at IHEs was handled. Most schools chose to centralize physical
security in a campus police department. e remaining schools chose to use
non-sworn security guards they either hired or were provided by third-party
vendors (e.g., Wackenhut Corporation). Both campus security and campus
police departments, however, were modeled after municipal police agencies to
include a quasi-military style rank structure, relative specialization, and top-
down communication (Paoline and Sloan 2003). Ocers and security guards
alike wore distinctive uniforms and carried various authority symbols, such as
handcus, badges, batons, and portable communication devices; sworn o-
cers were issued rearms which they openly carried while on duty.
Professionalization ofCampus Policing
As shown in Table19.2, if the 1960s and 1970s represented the period when
campus police became established and interwoven into the fabric of campus
communities, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed concerted eorts to profession-
alize campus policing to not only legitimize their presence, but enhance their
stature as “real cops” among both students and members of the law enforce-
ment community (Sloan 2020). Additionally, many campus police chiefs
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

420
created programs, similar to those used by other law enforcement agencies, to
formally recruit college students to “join the ranks.” Departments also began
requiring new hires to complete basic law enforcement training at the same
academies that train new recruits hired by municipal, county, and state police
departments (Reaves 2016); new ocers also had to complete a period of eld
training and complete regularly scheduled, department-sponsored, in-service
training. e result was the transformation of campus policing into a new
vocation for those interested in law enforcement careers.
e Student Right-to-Know andCampus Security Act of1990
As described above, the 1980s witnessed widespread claims that violence at
IHEs was reaching near epidemic proportions and lax physical security was a
contributing factor (Sloan and Fisher 2011). Critics claimed IHE-based
police and security departments possessed neither transparency nor account-
ability which was unacceptable. Knowles (2020) suggests the lack of account-
ability was because, unlike other law enforcement agencies, US campus police
departments are not directly accountable to elected ocials. Instead, they are
accountable to university administrators, boards of trustees, state legislatures,
and accrediting entities (where applicable)—venues that are far less open to
members of the public making them dicult to directly inuence. Campus
police departments also receive special legal protections such as being exempt
from public record laws and possess immunity from civil lawsuits (Okeke and
Abrahams 2018).
Successful grass-roots lobbying eorts in the late 1980s led to multiple
congressional hearings on campus crime, resulting in passage of the Campus
Security Act (see Tables 19.1 and 19.2). is law became the rst instance of
federal involvement with campus police and security operations and was
designed to enhance agency transparency for crime statistics collected and
accountability for publicly reporting them.
e Jeanne Clery Disclosure ofCampus Security Policy
andCampus Crime Statistics Act
A second federal intervention into IHEs’ police and security departments
occurred in 1998 with passage of the Clery Act (see Tables 19.1 and 19.2). In
addition to the new crime statistics reporting requirements, these depart-
ments had to now create and make available in real time a publicly available
B. S. Fisher et al.

421
“daily crime log” of reported oenses. ese new requirements and the con-
cerns driving them also facilitated campus police adopting community-
oriented policing (COP) as a new organizational model for their departments
during 1990s.
COP onCampus
Table 19.2 indicates that as part of the professionalization of campus policing,
during the 1990s shifts occurred in the organizational model of campus police
departments due to their adopting the philosophical, administrative, and tac-
tical components of COP.Adopting COP would not only reorient campus
policing to prioritize relations with the community but also change how
departments were organized by decentralizing and de-specializing them, not
to mention attening their rank-structure. COP also promised to help legiti-
mize campus police not only among students, but among members of the law
enforcement community more broadly as many of them worked at agencies
also experimenting with or fully implementing COP (Paoline and Sloan 2013).
Although widespread adoption of COP occurred during the 1990s and
into the 2000s, post-9/11 concerns relating to terrorist attacks at IHEs, ongo-
ing concerns over drug- and alcohol-facilitated victimizations occurring on
campus, especially those involving sexual victimization of college women,
helped limit many of the promised COP reforms. Instead, the 2000s saw the
beginnings of campus police militarization as increasing numbers of depart-
ments created special weapons and tactics or SWAT teams to address terrorist
threats and procure military-grade equipment and weapons. Bifurcation of
campus security continued, and as shown in both Tables 19.1 and 19.2, the
2000s witnessed a third intervention of Congress into the operations, policies,
and procedures of campus security agencies intended to again address issues
over agency transparency and accountability.
Higher Education Opportunity Act of2008
Mass shootings at Virginia Polytechnic and State University in 2007 and
Northern Illinois University in 2008 resulted in “active shooters” (Greenberg
2007) as a new security threat to IHEs and ongoing debate over the utility of
concealed carrying of rearms on campus (Sloan and Fisher 2018). Security
concerns over terrorist threats and physical plant loss from human causes or
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

422
natural disasters continued, along with emerging concerns over the cyber-
victimization of IHEs and/or their students (McQuade 2013).
In 2008 Congress passed the HEOA which included additional require-
ments for campus police designed to enhance transparency (see Tables 19.1
and 19.2). For example, campus police now had to help IHEs develop emer-
gency response and evacuation procedures and publicly report them.
Departments also had to compile statistics on and publicly report counts of
bias-related hate crimes involving larceny, simple assault, intimidation, and
destruction/damage/vandalism of property. Additional requirements included
developing and publicizing IHE policies for responding to reports of missing
students, re safety reporting, and disclosing campus security’s relationship
with local law enforcement.
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of2013
Moving into the 2010s, new security concerns emerged over dating and
domestic violence and stalking. Continuing security concerns over terrorist
threats, rearms and active shooters on campus, cybervictimization, mass
casualty events, threats to public order posed by student protests, and the
ever-present concern over protecting the campus physical plant remained.
e 2010s also witnessed continuing militarization of the campus police
and additional intervention by Congress in 2013 when VAWA was reautho-
rized and sought even greater transparency in the types of data being col-
lected, analyzed, and made public by campus police (see Tables 19.1 and
19.2). For example, provisions from the SaVE Act included campus police
having to compile and report statistics on cases of reported domestic violence,
dating violence, and stalking, and added two new categories of bias—gender
and identity—applicable to hate crime reporting. e new regulations were
once again focusing on enhanced transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
e evolution of IHE security in the United States has involved two legislative
“streams.” e rst involved the states, occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, and
involved them passing enabling legislation (or having attorneys general issue
binding opinions) that IHEs could create their own police departments staed
by sworn, armed, ocers. While not all IHEs chose that particular route
resulting in a bifurcation of campus security, the fact campus police/security
B. S. Fisher et al.

423
guards were available to protect person and property represented a sea change
in campus security. e second stream involved the US Congress. Beginning
in 1990 with passage of the Campus Security Act, over the next 15 years
Congress passed a series of amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965
designed to address growing concerns over the extent and nature of criminal
victimization occurring at IHEs and schools’ apparent failure to address them.
While the specic issues addressed by legislation varied, much of their focus
was with (1) the sexual victimization of college women, (2) victims’ rights,
and (3) ensuring current and prospective students, their parents, and employ-
ees had easy access to documentation of IHE security and safety policies and
procedures. Sanctions for noncompliance, ranging from civil nes to loss of
access to federal nancial aid, incentivized IHEs to take seriously the changes
in security policies and procedures mandated by legislation. Beyond address-
ing specic security issues, the legislation, amendments, and administrative
rules—either explicitly or implicitly—sought to increase transparency in, and
accountability for, how IHEs were addressing campus security issues.
On March 8, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order directing the
Department of Education to review all existing policies and regulations,
including the 2020 Final Rule. is action eectively begins his promise to
dismantle Trump-era changes to Title IX (Rogers and Green 2021). President
Biden’s executive order is among the rst changes by his administration
directed at the 2020 Final Rule. Only time will tell what the federal govern-
ment’s foci on campus security will be during the Biden administration.
Recommended Readings
Across four editions, Fisher and Sloan’s edited volume, Campus Crime: Legal,
Social and Policy Perspectives is a collection of original chapters whose topics
cover dierent aspects of crime and security at IHEs. Each edition (newest
edition, 2022) oers new and updated chapters that focus on legislation, col-
lege student victimization research, campus policing, and physical and cyber
security. Sloan and Fisher’s e Dark Side of the Ivory Tower: Campus Crime as
a Social Problem (2011) identies four disparate groups of “claimsmakers”
who separately socially constructed campus crime, victimization, and lax
security as a “new” social problem in the United States during the 1980s
and 1990s.
Focused more on campus security, Sulkowski and Lazarus (2011) review
various IHE’s eorts to reduce the risk of violence on campus, by utilizing
emerging technologies, allowing conceal carrying of rearms on campus, and
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

424
using active shooter proling tools to enhance campus security. Jacobson
(2017) examines the eect of IHE campus security measures and student
reporting of victimization by gender on-campus violent crime patterns.
Narrowing the foci of campus security to specic types of crimes, Rasmussen
and Johnson (2008) present results from a survey of student life and campus
safety ocials after the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting and discuss noti-
cation systems and security monitoring and enhancements implemented in
the wake of the mass shooting. Fox and Savage (2009) present ndings and
discuss recommendations for enhancing campus security from various task
forces convened after the mass shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern
Illinois University.
Sources of campus crime statistics and security policies include not only
annual security reports from Title IV eligible IHEs (i.e., those participating in
federal nancial aid programs) but also Indicators of School Crime and Safety
published annually and includes a chapter devoted to IHE crime and security
(Wang etal. 2020). e US Department of Educations’ online Security Data
Analysis Cutting Tool (https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/#/) provides the past
three years of data on crime (from 2005) and re (from 2010) statistics sub-
mitted annually for the entire IHE or by campus, along with an option to
view crime rates (the number per 1000 students), for download.
References
Bordner, D., & Petersen, D. (1983). Campus policing: e nature of university police
work. Baltimore, MD: University Press of America.
Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L.No. 106-386 (2000).
Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights, Pub. L.No 102-325, §486 [c] (1992).
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Harps, S., Townsend, R., omas, G., Lee, H.,
Kranz, V., Herbison, R., & Madden, K. (2020). Report on the AAU Campus
Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct.
Delehanty, C., Mewhirter, J., Welch, R., & Wilks, J. (2017). Militarization and
police violence: e case of the 1033 program. Research & Politics, 4(2), 1–7.
Fisher, B.S., Daigle, L.E., & Cullen, F.T. (2010). Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: e sexual
victimization of college women. ousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Fisher, B.S., & Sloan, J.J. (2013). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives.
Charles C omas Publisher.
Fox, J.A., & Savage, J. (2009). Murder goes to college: An examination of changes on
college campuses following Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10),
1465–1485.
B. S. Fisher et al.

425
Garland, B., Calfano, B., & Wodahl, E. (2018). College student perceptions of noti-
cation about sex oenders on campus. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
29(3), 240–257.
Gelber, S. (1972). e role of campus security in the college setting. Washington, DC:
U.S.Government Printing Oce.
Greenberg, S. (2007). Active shooters on college campuses: Conicting advice, roles
of the individual and rst responder, and the need to maintain perspective. Disaster
Medicine & Public Health Preparedness, 1(S1), S57–S61.
Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L.No. 110–315 (2008).
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. (2020).
About IACLEA.Retrieved January 8, 2021 from https://www.iaclea.org/about/.
Jacobson, S.K. (2017). Examining crime on campus: e inuence of institutional
factors on reports of crime at colleges and universities. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 28(4), 559–579.
Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics
Act, 20 U.S.C. §1092 (1998).
Johnson, N.R., & Feinberg, W.E. (1980). Youth protest in the 1960s. Sociological
Focus, 13(3), 173–178.
Jordan, V. (2019). Finding my voice: My journey to the West Wing and the path forward.
NewYork, NY: Penguin Random House, LLC.
Know Your IX. (2019) Re: ED Docket No. ED-2018-OCR-0064, RIN 1870-
AA14, Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities
receiving federal nancial assistance. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from https://
actionnetwork.org/user_les/user_les/000/029/219/original/Know_Your_IX_
Comment_on_Proposed_Title_IX_Rule_(1).pdf.
Knowles, J.E. (2020). Policing the American university. Watertown, MA: Civilytics
Consulting.
McQuade, S.C. (2013). High-tech abuse and crime on college and university cam-
puses. In B.S.Fisher & J.J.Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy
perspectives (3rd ed., pp.358–386). Springeld, IL: Charles C.omas.
Newcomer, L.A. (2017). Institutional liability for rape on college campuses. e Ohio
State Law Journal, 78, 503–539.
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving
Federal Financial Assistance, 34 CFR Part 106 (2020).
Okeke, C., & Abrahams, L. (2018, April). Four ways private university police forces jeop-
ardize public safety. Urban Wire. Retrieved January 9, 2021 from https://www.urban.
org/urban- wire/four- ways- private- university- police- forces- jeopardize- public- safety.
Paoline, E.A., & Sloan, J.J. (2003). Variability in the Organizational Structure of
Contemporary Campus Law Enforcement Agencies: A National-Level Analysis.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(4), 612–639.
Paoline, E.A., & Sloan, J.J. (2013). Community oriented policing (COP) on college
campuses: New directions? In B.S.Fisher & J.J.Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal,
social, and policy perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 324–342). Springeld, IL: Charles
C.omas.
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…

426
Peshek, S. (2018). e Morrill Act, explained. Retrieved January 6, 2021 from
https://today.tamu.edu/2018/07/01/the- morrill- act- explained/.
Rasmussen, C., & Johnson, G. (2008). e Ripple Eect of Virginia Tech: Assessing
the Nationwide Impact on Campus Safety and Security Policy and Practice.
Minneapolis: Midwestern Higher Education Compact.
Reaves, B.A. (2015). Campus law enforcement: 2011–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
Reaves, B.A. (2016). State and local law enforcement training academies: 2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rogers, K., & Green, E.L. (2021, March 8). Biden will revisit Trump rules on cam-
pus sexual assault. e NewYork Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/
us/politics/joe- biden- title- ix.html?referringSource=articleShare.
Sloan, J.J. (2020, October 7). A seminal moment for America’s campus police? BSC
Blog. Retrieved January 6, 2021 from https://thebscblog.wordpress.
com/2020/10/07/a- seminal- moment- for- americas- campus- police/.
Sloan, J.J., & Fisher, B.S. (2011). e dark side of the Ivory Tower: Campus crime as a
social problem. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sloan, J.J., & Fisher, B.S. (2018). Arming the Ivory Tower. Paper presented at the
2018 Annual Meetings of the Southern Criminal Justice Association, Pensacola
Beach, September 12.
Student Right-to-Know & Campus Security Act, Pub. L.No 101-542 (1990).
Sulkowski, M.L., & Lazarus, P.J. (2011). Contemporary responses to violent attacks
on college campuses. Journal of School Violence, 10(4), 338–354.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Pub L.No. 92-318, 86 Stat.
235 (1972).
US Department of Education Oce for Civil Rights. (1997). Sexual Harassment
Guidance 1997. Retrieved January 17, 2021 from https://www2.ed.gov/about/
oces/list/ocr/docs/sexhar01.html.
US Department of Education Oce for Civil Rights. (2001). Revised sexual harass-
ment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students, or
third parties. Retrieved January 17, 2021 from https://www2.ed.gov/about/
oces/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf.
US Department of Education Oce for Civil Rights. (2011). Dear colleague letter.
Retrieved January 17, 2021 from https://www2.ed.gov/about/oces/list/ocr/let-
ters/colleague- 201104.html.
US Department of Education Oce for Civil Rights. (2014). Questions and Answers
on Title IX and Sexual Violence. Retrieved January 18, 2021 from https://www2.
ed.gov/about/oces/list/ocr/docs/qa- 201404- title- ix.pdf.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher
Education General Information Survey. (2019). Total fall enrollment in degree-
granting postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution, attendance sta-
tus, and sex of student: Selected years, 1970 through 2029. Retrieved January 18,
2021 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_303.30.asp.
B. S. Fisher et al.

427
Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub L.No. 103-322, Title IV (1994).
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2000, Pub L. No. 106-386,
Division B (2000).
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub L.No. 109-162 (2005).
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub L.No. 133-4 (2013).
Wada, J.C., Patten, R., & Candela, K. (2010), Betwixt and between: e perceived
legitimacy of campus police. Policing, 33(1), 114–131.
Wang, K., Chen, Y., & Zhang, J. (2020). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2019.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of
Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Oce of Justice Programs, US
Department of Justice.
19 The Evolution of College and University Campus Security…